“I never look at it. I can’t. I Googled myself once, and I looked at it and I was like, I can’t look at that. That just brings me right back to me laying on the ground.”

These are the expressions of Jeff Bauman, a Boston Bombings survivor who we remember from this graphic photo of him published on social media right after the catastrophic event. He is also referenced to as a hero, since he helped the FBI identify Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The picture is graphic in many ways, particularly as it shows he lost both limbs. There are many ethical implications and issues that can be explored regarding publishing this photo. Journalists, photojournalists, and others working on news organizations have the responsibility to confront us with the truth, not hide it from us. They do so by narrating stories. These stories help readers understand reality. Even though publishing these photos is disturbing, journalists may feel they need to show the different sides of the story and different perspectives, so that readers get an easier understanding of the big picture. However, there are many ethical considerations regarding whether or not to publish these types of images. I will address some of the most important ones to conclude that there was no reason to publish this photo.

One of the ethical implications is the debate between privacy and public interest. While a man is struggling with shock and pain, why is it necessary to spread such an image as he deals with this devastating situation, in which he probably was not even reasoning what was happening? Is this the only way of telling people the story about the Boston Marathon Bombings? Maybe they could have used his photo without showing the limbs and put something on the text to describe what happened to him. Isn’t the image too graphic or it’s essential to tell this story? According to Bloodshed in the news – dealing with graphic images, “Harrowing photographs do not inevitably lose their power to shock. But they are not much help if the task is to understand. Narratives can make us understand. Photographs do something else: they haunt us.” Another question is, do they need to exploit a tragic event to inform the public? Is a man’s right to privacy lost because the incident happened in a public place? How ethical is it to publish this image without his consent? I don’t think so and one reason is that it may be distressing to his family, particularly when they learned about what happened to him through social media.

According to Family Of Jeff Bauman, Double Amputee In Viral Photo, Learned Of Injuries On Facebook, Jeff’s father got a call from his stepdaughter asking him, “if he had seen the picture.” It was at that moment when he turned to Facebook and saw the viral photo. This means the publishing of the photo left no time for the family to be contacted by the authorities. Because of speed and immediacy on social media, they learned about this. Journalists know this about social media. They know news travel faster than with traditional media. However, because they are in a rush to publish the best content, they do not stop for a second to analyze how this can impact a victim’s family. Another thing they don’t analyze is how can the photo impact the victim, considering emotional effects and dignity. I started this post with a quote from the injured person, which clearly portrays how disturbing and traumatic the photo still is and how he can’t even look at it. Photos published on social media are also permanent and victims struggle with post-traumatic stress. Doesn’t anyone stop to think about this for one second? The other distressing part for both the family and the victim is the fact that the photo is way too graphic, explicit, and gruesome. The mental well-being of both should be taken into consideration, as well as the fact that they needed to grieve and let it sink in.

I have a question for journalists and for all of us. Does social media make us more hungry for this type of content? Do these images make us and the victims more or less human? Are we more curious because we have access to more information, which we can access faster? I think these circumstances should be approached with more sensitivity. I think such images are not essential to tell a story, as they are not the only option to use in the narrative. German journalist Simon P. Balzert composed a code of ethics for the use of graphic images. Some of the guidelines include publishing more emotionally appealing and least shocking images and not publishing solely for its shock or entertainment value. On the contrary, it should be published because it’s newsworthy and pertinent.

Filed under: Social Media Ethics Tagged: boston bombings, boston marathon bombings, disaster porn, graphic images social media, social media ethics]]>http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/03/10/ethical-implications-of-disaster-porn/feed/6celestemartinez2014cropped-sept111.jpgMy Fellow Ellohttp://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/02/24/my-fellow-ello/
http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/02/24/my-fellow-ello/#commentsTue, 24 Feb 2015 16:29:07 +0000http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/?p=1182]]>Ello’s promise is that it will not make money from selling ads or user data. The anti-Facebook social network launched last year with these promises; to make these even tighter, ir converted its legal structure to a Public Benefits Corporation. This means that Ello is a for-profit organization, but an essential part of its philosophy to benefit society. The company sees money and profit as a means to make social impact. Ello wants to provide users the opportunity to connect without other companies seeing them as products that can be bought and sold. According to Ello Doesn’t Have Ads, “Collecting and selling your personal information, reading your posts, and mapping your social connections for profit is unethical. Every new feature on an ad-driven network is either a new way to gather more data about you (which can be sold), or show you more ads (which are auctioned), or both.” Thus, Ello’s motto is to do the right thing by making the product beneficial to users themselves, not to other companies. In this way, we see a company reflecting what care ethics is about.

Without advertising, the company says it will make money out of premium extra features, like profile customization. This model is not new and, in some cases, it has proven to be profitable. As a matter of fact, it’s widely used in the gaming industry, known as the “freemium model,” in which users play for free, but pay for extras. The concept is if you want to get the best rewards or features, you have to pay money; users pay to enhance the experience. Clash of Clans and Game of War: Fire Age made enough money last year to buy Super Bowl ads. Sounds good, right? It’s important to note that only 1.5% of freemium revenue comes from these purchases. Also, this model doesn’t mean that these apps are free from advertising. As a matter of fact, according to a survey by App Annie and IDC on 2013, 50% of app revenue comes from in-app advertising and that percentage is expected to increase in 2017. There are two possible scenarios regarding data mining here:

It doesn’t mean that no one is using data; it’s used internally to enhance user experience

With the information above, we see the success of the gaming apps does imply using advertising as an important source of revenue, thus user data is sold.

In my opinion, this model might work for gaming, but not for social, especially if the social network offering an ad-free experience has no attractive features and functionalities that may motivate me to try it or even consider leaving Facebook because that one is better. In order for Ello to profit from the extras, it needs to increase its user base. As of October, they had 1 million users, to which they just added 250,000 more. The rollout has been limited because the platform is unfinished and they have decided to add features along the way. They have missed a very important thing, if not the most: the app version. Considering the growth of mobile usage, how come they leave this for 8 months after launching?

Just recently, Ello added the ability to post videos from other sources like YouTube. In Ello Is Becoming a Real Social Network, Even as Tech Media Pronounces It Dead, John Koetsier touches on this point by saying that this new ability to share video does include ads, not from Ello, but from YouTube. I wonder what platforms like YouTube and Soundcloud will be able to do regarding advertising, considering the fact that they will be able to know where traffic comes from. Technically, Ello is not selling information, but it’s providing an open forum for others to take data from there. Ello was able to tackle this with a feature on the settings menu, which you can turn off to avoid embedded media.

I think at this point, this limits the user’s ability to connect organically; to create and celebrate life just like Ello wants. It’s a cool option and it strengthens their position about no ads, but then it’s also a barrier for sharing information. If I’m an artist and want to share my video from YouTube with my friends, then it means not everyone will see them. What will happen when people are able to use hashtags? Doesn’t this give outside sources access to content related to a hashtag? I wonder up to what point can they keep this promise, when content like hashtags are part of a universal database.

I honestly love Ello’s philosophy and I like the intention of creating a company with a sustainable model that wants to do social good by intending to protect people and providing a platform strictly for connecting with other people, not products. The freemium model they expect to use for added features and customization sounds like a great idea, but why will people pay for something that they can have for free in the platform which billions of people use? In order to capitalize on this, they must focus on what’s different and try to make it really different. If there is the equivalent of a newsfeed, what feature does my product have that makes me different? Snapchat and Instagram did this. They both have feeds, but Snapchat decided to erase content and Instagram decided to stick to enhancing the photo sharing process. It’s a matter of differentiation…..and launching the app as soon as possible. As soon as they are able to increase its user base, we will be able to see if these promises also result in a sustainable company.

I think people will react positively, just like me, initially. I loved the idea and the concept, but once I got a chance to play with the platform, I couldn’t find anything interesting or too different, so I never used it. Also, it will take a while to see if there will be consequences for all social media, but I can say it makes me think about Path, another social network which tried to deliver a similar ad-free promise to protect privacy, but with a price people were not willing to pay. I think there is a fine line between protecting and not protecting users on social media. They’re all businesses and they need to make money, sometimes sacrificing what they initially say they will protect.

In How to Effectively Moderate Social Media, Threfall makes this statement, which helps explain the importance of social media moderation. The purpose of moderation is to lead conversations. On social media, this involves keeping an eye on what people are saying on our social media pages, so that we can keep a safe, peaceful, and collaborative environment, rather than one characterized by offensive, potentially dangerous, and out-of-line comments. The role of the social media moderator is monitor, track, listen, and respond, when necessary and according to a company’s social media policy. In the end, the aim should be to develop and maintain relationships, so the strategy should be to take actions that work in favor of this, rather than against. The social media moderator faces many challenges, depending of the situation. There are also many possible ways to address different comments, as well as unlimited choices, including deciding not to respond, deleting a comment, and responding publicly or privately. There are also many choices regarding what to say and how to say it, in terms of tone and language.

Below please find two hypothetical examples of audience and customer comments and my approach regarding moderating these. My recommendation is to respond to both online, right at the place they customer posted the comment. This, in my opinion, serves to respond to others who might have the same concern. Also, it’s a way for companies to transform a negative situation into a positive one. I think it’s the opportunity for a company to demonstrate how serious it is about its business.

Example #1

Customer comment to a hotel:“I am disgusted about the state of your restaurant on 1467 Justin Kings Way. Empty tables weren’t cleared and full of remains of meals. It makes me wonder what the state of your kitchen is?!!! Gross.”

My response: “Hello (insert customer name). Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We sincerely apologize for this situation at our restaurant during your visit. Cleanliness is one of our of top priorities and I can assure you that steps are being taken with members of our team to address and correct this issue, so that it does not happen again. (Insert customer name), we value you as a customer and would like to take this opportunity to invite you to come back to our restaurant and give us another chance. If you wish to contact me directly, you can call the restaurant (phone number) and ask for Celeste. Have a great day!”

Example #2:

Message to a mainstream news network: “Your reporting on the Middle East is biased in the extreme. You gave almost all your air time to spokespeople for the Israelis last night and there was no right to reply for the Palestinians. The conflict upsets me so much and your reporting of it, saddens me even more and makes me f**king furious.” (Let us assume the reporting was balanced, with equal time to both sides.)

My response: “Hello (customer name). Thank you for taking the time to write us about how you feel regarding our reporting about the Middle East. Our mission is to conduct reporting that is characterized by impartiality, fairness, and justness. We value the members of our audience and would like you to continue tuning in to our station. Please feel feel to contact me directly by email (insert email address) if you would have additional questions or concerns. Thank you and have a great day.”

Both responses are honest, genuine and address the specific areas which are under attack. Also, both mention how the company values those two areas as part each company’s mission and vision. Finally, both responses offer an opportunity to take the conversation outside, if there are other areas that need to be addressed. Since both user comments address sensitive issues like restaurant cleanliness and biased reporting, I think it’s best to address it publicly in general terms and then offline. Address the areas in such a way that people acknowledge someone is listening to them, but never go into too much detail either, because that may irritate the user even more. Responding in a genuine, sincere, and authentic way yields respect.

Filed under: Social Media Ethics Tagged: buzzworthy creations, buzzworthy social media, celeste martinez, daniel threlfall, moderation, social media, social media moderation, social media negative reviews]]>http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/02/09/the-act-of-moderating-on-social-media/feed/4celestemartinez2014Taco Bell: Licking its woundshttp://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/02/05/taco-bell-licking-its-wounds/
http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/02/05/taco-bell-licking-its-wounds/#commentsThu, 05 Feb 2015 20:55:20 +0000http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/?p=1169]]>Going out to eat is a treat. Sometimes, it’s a way to bail us out of our daily routine, which includes cooking at home. Either way, when we eat out we expect to have a pleasant experience. When eat outside of our house, either at a fast-food, casual or fine dining restaurant, we expect that not only it will satisfy our hunger, but that we will have an overall pleasant experience. We trust that the restaurant has food safety standards, including how employees handle food and we have some degree of confidence, regarding cleaning procedures. Imagine what happens if these expectations are cut short if one day, as we look at our Facebook newsfeed, we find a photo of one employee of our favorite fast-food restaurant literally licking a stack of taco shells? The fast-food industry is suffering as a result of people who have taken to social media their increasing concern regarding the ingredients used, employees mishandling ingredients, and food sabotage. Think Taco Bell.

In June 2013, a Taco Bell employee posted this photo on his personal Facebook page. Was Taco Bell’s reputation at risk? Absolutely. There’s three issues here: the social media crisis, how people respond, and how Taco Bell responds. What would I think of Taco Bell if I see this post? That the people I’m able to see preparing my tacos when I go there are kids who love to play with food so much that they’re willing to contaminate it with their saliva before they clock in or during training. My immediate reaction will be to stop visiting the place, take it out of my food hard drive and share the news with my friends. This is what happened. It was such a compelling and powerful image that, in no time, people began to share it. It’s difficult for such a photo not to become viral.

People reacted with negative feedback and talked about how disgusting is Taco Bell’s food, as well as its employee lack of self control when posting these types of photos. Sharing is a big part of social media and it may affect reputation, positively or negatively. Sharing makes it possible for a message to reach more people. As a result, with incidents like this one, the bigger the audience, the more a negative message spreads there’s more people disgusted.

Taco-Bell responded relatively fast on their website, where they published the following statement:

They responded swiftly and, even though I don’t see an apology in this statement, I think they did a good job recognizing that they were on top of the situation and identifying the course of action. Also, they address an area which would be my concern: whether these shells were served to customers. They insist they didn’t. Do I believe them? That’s another story. Also, in this statement, Taco Bell also reaffirms what the organization does and how much it cares about strict food handling. Finally, they clarify that they don’t tolerate this type of behavior. At least there is some honesty there! Even though this sounds reasonable enough to safeguard their reputation, there are some things they missed.

First of all, they responded on the website. Isn’t the right thing to do is to at least respond on Facebook, which was the platform used to disseminate this photo and then Twitter? As of March 2013, they had 9 million fans on Facebook and 880k on Twitter. Isn’t that amount of people way more than those who visit their website? In my opinion, posting this statement on their website was more a way to be able to say, “yes, we responded.” However, I don’t think it shows they actually cared about the situation. There is now way that they didn’t know they could potentially reach more people on social. Or maybe they didn’t want to create a horned’s nest again?

Also, they didn’t invite people to comment. As a matter of fact in Taco Bell’s Social Media Crisis Communications Fail, Melissa Agnes says that they even shut down the commenting by disabling this feature. Before doing this, they responded to some comments posted on their page. I don’t think that was enough. Shutting down comments means Taco Bell will have a negative reputation regarding how they allow (or don’t) their customers to speak. Remember, social media is about listening and responding. Isn’t the whole point of social media is to be social? To be able to interact and, in this case, have the intention of maintaining relationships, even after after this type of incident? Finally, I think they missed empathy; putting themselves in other’s shoes. The respond had a “corporate tone,” but I didn’t feel they were sorry.

Prior Taco Bell’s reputation has been harmed before by these types of post on social media by members of their own team; by people who are supposed to be advocates! There is a precedent here and people are sensible. As I mentioned at the beginning, if the fast food industry is suffering as a result of negative comments on social media, companies should have a plan to address these incidents, revise company policies regarding employees and be prepared to act swiftly, honestly, and genuinely.

Filed under: Social Media Ethics Tagged: buzzworthy, buzzworthy creations, buzzworthy social media, celestemartinez, melissa agnes, taco bell social media, tacobell]]>http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/02/05/taco-bell-licking-its-wounds/feed/8celestemartinez2014Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 2.50.47 PM1Why I trust Oprahhttp://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/01/22/1145/
http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/01/22/1145/#commentsThu, 22 Jan 2015 18:30:17 +0000http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/?p=1145]]>I trust Oprah Winfrey, both online and offline. She earned by trust many years ago because, not only she is genuine and transparent, but also she is intimate, helpful, knowledgable, and reliable. I’ll add to this equation that she is one of the most selfless persons I’ve ever known. Yes, she has a huge media empire that makes a lot of money, but she uses that fortune to help others and to touch our lives by handing us the tools that we can use to be better persons; to grow as compassionate human beings. I trust her so much that I think what she says is what’s right. Oprah is committed to making a better world. The first webcast that I ever saw and the one that helped me get through a very rough time when I lost my dad was Oprah and Eckhart Tolle: A New Earth. My relationship with Oprah started when she had the show and now extends to social media networks. I follow Oprah on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

We discussed Steve Rayson’s trust formula, which is as follows:

TRUST= Authority x Helpfulness x Intimacy/Self promotion)

Taking a look at each of these variables, I can say that they are present at Oprah’s social media accounts. Let’s begin with authority, which means someone is knowledgable and demonstrates it, in this case through quality content. For example, on Facebook, Oprah has devoted content during the past month to Selma, a movie she produced about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. about his fight against discrimination of black people being able to register to vote during 1960’s. The content we see is meant to create awareness about this situation by educating us. Her knowledge about this, which is important to her because we’ve seen her advocating for equal rights, moved her to launch this campaign on Facebook, which is educational and is how she demonstrates not only how much she knows about it, but how much is her commitment to this cause. She posted this video just this week, Because of Dr. King, in which many people expressed how his fight and achievements influenced their lives:

Oprah has the power to summon and call together a huge number of people so that they can show their gratitude. Judging by the amount of fans Oprah has (10 million+) and most of the responses to this message, we can see how someone with authority moved people:

In terms of intimacy, I can say that on social platforms, Oprah has opened the doors to her home, the most intimate place. She has also allowed us to see how she spends Christmas, when she picks fruit and what she’s having for dinner. She is warm and friendly enough to make us part of her daily life. Another example, is how committed she is to meditation, which is a great tool that portrays is important to her, thus she shares how it makes her human. Finally, intimacy is also about sharing what’s meaningful to you. Here are come examples of how this intimacy is reflected on her Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts:

In terms of helpfulness, there is no doubt that Oprah’s mission is to help others, and on her social media platform she continues to do that. She shares information about the multiple projects she runs to help others. Some may see this as self promotion, but I see it as a way to ask people to contribute to the lives of those in need. For example, in collaboration with Teavana, she launched the Oprah Chai Tea last year to support educational opportunities for young people. This item is sold at Starbucks, so she has dedicated some efforts on social media to promote this, which has a bigger end result than just making money. Take a look at the post below in which she personally went to Starbucks to enjoy the drink and posted the photo. Because we are talking about help, please note the comments people wrote and how one of Oprah’s community manager took the time to reply. One of them is a question to which they replied.

I think Oprah actively participates on her Twitter account and engages with people. It’s not a customer service forum, so there is not so much she can help with. Still, she takes time to respond. In the example below, she responds Tallulah to a post about the Chai tea, with a comment about sharing it with a friend. This is a way of helping too!

I could continue to give examples, but I’m sure by this time, it’s very clear how the reasons I trust her are reflected on how she behaves on the platforms, thus bringing me closer to her. She promotes her meditation sessions with Deepak Chopra, for example, but they are all meant to help us grow as human beings. I say it again, I trust Oprah.

http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/01/22/1145/feed/4celestemartinez2014becauseofinstaquotesgardenchaichaicommentcomment2oprahThe Rules According to Pinteresthttp://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/01/13/the-rules-according-to-pinterest/
http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/01/13/the-rules-according-to-pinterest/#commentsTue, 13 Jan 2015 22:16:04 +0000http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/?p=1133]]>Pinterest’s mission is to “connect everyone in the world through the ‘things’ they find interesting” via a global platform of inspiration and idea sharing. Its Terms of Service include the Acceptable Use Policy, which follows a different format regarding the rules people must follow when using social networks. We have evaluated Facebook’s, Twitter’s and Ello’s terms and conditions. In these three, the rules consist of a list of what we can’t do.

What’s different with Pinterest is that after each rule, there is both a short and long explanation of what the rule means, as well as examples (in the form of pins) of the types of posts they allow. Below is the first example of one of the sections of this document:

Stuff you can’t post

You aren’t allowed to post anything that…..

Is sexually explicit or pornographic, exploits or presents minors in a sexual way, or promotes adult sexual services

Why did Pinterest feel ethically responsible to elaborate on each one of the rules in such a way that people understand the message more easily? Why did they want to ensure that this message in particular, regarding the rules is clear? I would say their intention is to obtain consensus from users regarding what surrounds each matter (in this case nudity) in order to maintain the sense of community that we clearly see on Pinterest communications. This document is different that the Terms of Service, which has a language and serious/legal tone. Terms of Service was probably written by a lawyer. The Acceptable Use Policy was written by a member of the Pinterest community. Your neighbor is talking to you, not a lawyer.

When you see the title of this section (Stuff you can’t post), you immediately get that Pinterest is talking to a friend. You’re still going to get the don’t do this format of the rules, but in a more informal tone. The short version is for just like me who don’t like to read and the long version is more poetic, honest, and clear. Pinterest’s concern with these types of pins is the well-being of the community. They say they don’t mean to define art (after they mention that artistic nude photographs are ok). The company wants to make it clear where the boundaries are and clarifies that what the want to do what’s good for its community. “We focus on what might make images too explicit for our community.” The implication of this is based on utilitarianism. Lets do things that keep the most people happy. By taking a look at the language, you see they want to protect their relationships (care ethics) with their followers by carefully explaining what they need to avoid. They are using pins, which is the essence of this social networks. In what other possible way could they have explained this better? I’m not sure there is another way! On the other side, going into this amount of detail to explain something may represent more material people have to question the company; more space for interpretation.

Here is another example regarding pins that contain any information or content that’s illegal:

I’m self-employed and my business name is Buzzworthy Creations. Basically, I’m a distributor of promotional products, point-of-purchase materials, and product displays, which I bring from Colombia, China and the US. In a nutshell, promotional products are the giveaways you get at conventions, like tote bags and pens. Point of purchase materials include signage at the point of sale and product displays are fixtures you see at supermarkets, like M&Ms displays with tempting packages of chocolates. My clients are mainly multinational companies, such as Colgate and McCain Foods.

Some examples of the items I distribute

My goal with this program is to find a business opportunity within social media which I can add to my business. In other words, specializing in something that I can then offer my clients as an additional service. This could be offering my clients social media consultancy or specializing on a particular area, like analytics. In order to do this, I think it’s necessary to have some background and knowledge in social media ethics. In the end, my future clients will trust in me to handle their social media efforts so I need to make sure about that I have full knowledge about some areas of ethics, like trust and privacy.

Filed under: Social Media Ethics Tagged: buzzworthy social media, celestemartinez, celesteufsocial, displays, point of purchase materials, promotional products]]>http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2015/01/07/celeste-martinez-course-introduction/feed/0celestemartinez2014IMG_0260BOLSAS HUGGIES2Big Data and Consumer Experience-Netflixhttp://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2014/10/06/big-data-and-consumer-experience-netflix/
http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2014/10/06/big-data-and-consumer-experience-netflix/#commentsMon, 06 Oct 2014 15:52:37 +0000http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/?p=1122]]>Netflix is a good example of a company that benefits from leveraging on Big Data and enhances the consumer experience with their product, in this case, the streaming service. For this assignment, I will focus on how they used Big Data to select one of their original series, House of Cards. I will also discuss how they use Big Data to enhance the consumer experience by learning from their behavior while using the product, including pausing, rewinding, abandonment, as well as replaying scenes. In my opinion, they are leveraging on Big Data in as successful way in order to create and personalized and meaningful experience to the consumer. They have been able to make consumers like me think that when I log to my account, the experience will be a really close reflection of my interests.

Before giving the green light for House of Cards, Netflix already know they would have an audience for that show. They were so positive about this that they didn’t ask for the pilot first, which is usually what happens; they went straight to the 13 episodes. How could they be so sure? Based on the data they obtained through their subscribers they knew that many of them watched The Social Network, a movie produced by the show’s producer, David Fincher. Secondly, the British version of the House of Cards was well watched. Finally, subscribers who watched that version of the show had also watched movies with Kevin Spacey or directed by Fincher. I don’t have to say that the show proved to be a success in terms of viewership and the increased number of Netflix subscribers. In this case, they were able to establish this based on Big Data obtained from their own customers. I have to add that they must have also figured out that people love political drama shows. Based on data too, they decided to produce not one, but 10 versions of the trailer, each targeted to different audiences, according to their viewing behavior. By doing so, they were able to talk to viewers based on what they knew they like, so they could draw the series to their attention.

Netflix also uses Big Data to enhance consumer experience. I’m a subscriber and heavy user of the Netflix streaming service. I now wonder I must be driving them crazy. A month ago, I just started to watch Mad Men and immediately got hooked with the show. However, since I watch it on weekdays at night, I tend to only watch 2 episodes before falling asleep with the TV on. Because each time one episodes finishes another one begins automatically, I wonder if as soon as Netflix notices that the next day I watch the shows again, they get that I fall asleep based on the time of they day I usually watch and its relationship with the pattern. They also know that I hit pause at 10:00pm to take my dogs out and then continue to watch the show. The reality is that these patterns give them a lot of information about my usage.

Netflix also uses Big Data collected from their subscribers to give recommendations. According to How Netflix Uses Analytics, they also put tags to shows, like according to level of violence, theme, gender roles, and very specific information, such as the professional career of the main character. They make meaningful usage of this data because it tells them what people like to watch. Since the whole point of this service is to maintain people interested in finding content, they use this data to determine how they can do that. It is no coincidence that I don’t usually have to search for shows using the “search” feature because Netflix effectively predicts what I would like to watch next. Now that I mention this search button, I wonder all the possible information they could obtain from people who use it.

In my promotional products business, I use data from Google Analytics and Facebook Insights. The first one provides information about visits to my website, including audience, interests, behavior, and technology, among others. In terms of behavior, there is the possibility to see which users are new and which are returning visitors. This is extremely valuable because that should give me an idea about whether or not my website design is attractive, if it’s user friendly, and if content is relevant. I do have to make some assumptions, but I can establish trends using this data so I can make changes, if necessary. How do you use Big Data?

Filed under: Metrics & Evaluation Tagged: big data, big data usage, buzzworthy creations, buzzworthy social media, celeste martinez, metrics, netflix, promotional products]]>http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2014/10/06/big-data-and-consumer-experience-netflix/feed/0celestemartinez2014Cracker Barrel’s Decision to Pull Duck Dynasty Merchandisehttp://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2014/09/22/cracker-barrels-decision-to-pull-duck-dynasty-merchandise/
http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2014/09/22/cracker-barrels-decision-to-pull-duck-dynasty-merchandise/#commentsMon, 22 Sep 2014 15:54:09 +0000http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/?p=1120]]>On December 2013, GQ released an interview with Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, in which he made some serious and potentially offensive expressions about homosexuality. Many groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and GLADD, criticized these expressions, as well as other people who echoed this indignation on social media. Other results from these remarks include A&E’s, the network that broadcasts the show, decision to suspend him. Another business partner of Duck Commander (the name of the merchandise brand), Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, decided to pull some of Duck Dynasty products out of the shelves at their stores. 24 hours after making that decision, they put the products back on the shelves. I would say both decisions were made using data analysis, including listening to people’s comments and evaluating them using quantitative, qualitative data, as well as context and sentiment analysis. For this discussion, I will concentrate on Cracker Barrel’s decision and evaluation process.

Cracker Barrel made two decisions in 24 hours or less probably based on listening to people’s responses and evaluating the possible outcomes there would be for them, as merchants of Duck Commander. In order to decide to pull out the merchandise, they listened to how people responded to Robertson’s anti-gay comments, how they felt, if they were seen as positive or negative, if attitudes were neutral. They also looked at how A&E responded, and decided that the possible offensive impact on some of their customers by keeping that merchandise weighed more than by pulling it out of the shelves. They also evaluated how this decision might impact the brand’s image in relation to how it looks by distancing from anything that has to do with anti-gay comments. However, they were bombarded by messages on Twitter, email, and phone calls, including threats to boycott Cracker Barrel. They were not able to anticipate the impact of their first decision on their customers. This is why, the day after, they reversed that decision and said: “You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called; you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong. We listened.” Here are some of the messages on Twitter:

In my opinion, taking two opposite decisions with two different possible impacts on customers doesn’t look like a responsible thing a company can do, if they want to show some consistency. They were able to admit a mistake, but they could have taken the time to listen before making that first decision. While we talk about listening to our customers, my question is, does Cracker Barrel make decisions based on listening what customers think about issues involving prejudice and controversial issues or they stand by their corporate policy regarding these issues? Do they respond as their customers respond? I think in this case, they evidently waited for their own customers to start talking and this is why they changed their opinion. When they noticed that the first decision could damage Cracker Barrel in the long run, they had to step back. This could have been avoided by taking the time to listen better.

Filed under: Metrics & Evaluation Tagged: buzzworthy, buzzworthy creations, buzzworthy social media, cracker barrel, data, data and decisions, data and listening, decisions based on data, duck dynasty]]>http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2014/09/22/cracker-barrels-decision-to-pull-duck-dynasty-merchandise/feed/0celestemartinez2014AT&T’s It Can Wait Campaignhttp://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2014/09/11/atts-it-can-wait-campaign/
http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/2014/09/11/atts-it-can-wait-campaign/#commentsThu, 11 Sep 2014 14:31:16 +0000http://buzzworthycreationsblog.com/?p=1116]]>AT&T’s “It Can Wait” is an example of a well-structured public relations campaign (which won The Public Relations Society Best of Silver Anvil Award in 2014) and a nice attempt by the company to create awareness about the danger of texting and driving, particularly among teens. It definitely boosts the company’s corporate image and positions it as a responsible corporate citizen. No doubt. According to It Can Wait Overview, the results of the campaign so far also reflect that it has been successful in terms of impressions, app downloads, pledges, page views, reach, and media integration. However, it has failed to translate those results to reducing the number of people who actually decide to quit texting while driving. In other words, AT&T has not been able to convince people to take action, which in this case means not texting while driving. According to the results presented on the article AT&T’s anti-texting campaign: lots of impressions, zero sucess, conversions have been little or none.

According to Beyond the like: What comes next in social measurement, there are other factors that brands should consider measuring, other than likes and shares. These factors are more specifically related to driving people to take action outside social platforms. Even though AT&T’s efforts for this campaign go beyond social media, the results are still not there. The number of pledges, app downloads, and impressions is not enough. The other problem is that, in measuring these results, AT&T seems to be more worried about the brand’s perception and imagery rather than on what is really important. The survey they did on Twitter clearly shows this. In my opinion, they are presenting these results to show this campaign is a success story. What they have not done, in my opinion, is implementing ROI stories in which people engage, not only by liking, sharing or commenting, but taking action.

Let’s take, for example, the one they are doing right now with Demi Lovato. There is a contest right now on the website in which users upload a photo of them doing a pose, dance or any other thing that might motivate their friends to use #X to let them know they are about to drive and cannot respond. Next, they say how they use #X. Once they submit they have a chance to meet Demi Lovato backstage. Sounds like an incentive, but again, does it really stimulate them to stop? They can measure how many entries they receive, how many people visit the website, but can they rest assured that those contestants actually will not text and drive? No.

One of my recommendations would be to integrate a calendar to their Drive Mode app, which automatically updates when the customer uses it everyday. Then AT&T can offer incentives to people who use it for more than one month, 3 months and so forth. Here, they can make sure they don’t cheat because everything is updated automatically. Some of the rewards would be in the form of discount on the bill, accessories, or free upgrades after using for 12 months. Another idea is to link information from this app to social media accounts so customers can share this information with their friends. Once their friends see that others are actually taking action, they might be motivated. In order for this to work, this app should also be available for Iphone!

Finally, in order to capitalize on the fact that a large number of respondents said they can stop texting and driving if someone in the car asks them to do so, AT&T can run a contest in which users submit Vine videos showing how the driver turned off his or her phone when he or she was driving others to a party. On a final note, the Marketing department needs to be in touch with other departments, such as Research or Operations to optimize the app and define other types of technology that might help have better results.